Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite
 string transformation rules
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:59:45 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <v4d991$3qbnc$1@i2pn2.org>
References: <v45tec$4q15$1@dont-email.me> <v46na7$3ifov$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v48be9$rgsh$1@dont-email.me> <v48gh6$3kcoe$4@i2pn2.org>
 <v48jv2$se9c$1@dont-email.me> <v49dge$3kcoe$5@i2pn2.org>
 <v4a0hs$157ic$3@dont-email.me> <v4ak5o$3kcoe$6@i2pn2.org>
 <v4am8r$19edk$1@dont-email.me> <v4apjs$19rnv$1@dont-email.me>
 <v4arp0$1a7uo$1@dont-email.me> <v4b1c3$3nf9n$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4b50m$1f89t$5@dont-email.me> <v4c12r$3oop0$3@i2pn2.org>
 <v4cjl7$1o4b4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 22:59:45 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="4009708"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v4cjl7$1o4b4$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 5382
Lines: 116

On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider
>>>>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the
>>>>>>> business of H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input
>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D)
>>>>> is irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course there is.
>>>>
>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips
>>> though the cracks of vagueness.
>>>
>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that
>>> DDD terminates normally.
>>
>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true.
>>
>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter 
>> example exists, it might just not be discovered.
>>
> 
> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
> 
> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism*
> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker
> for halt decider H.

Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the 
input when directly run.

> 
> When we compute the mapping from the input to H(D,D) this
> must apply a set of finite string transformation rules
> (specified by the semantics of the x86 language) to this input.

No, we apply the DEFINTION of the problem that H is claiming to solve.

The finite-string transformation that does this is an actual UTM.

> 
> The appropriate finite string transformation rules are D
> correctly simulated by H.

Then H just is NOT a Halt Decider, and you are just admitting to LYING 
about that for the last decades, as the transformation rules are that of 
a the UTM.

Unles you can provide a RELAIBLE SOURCE for your claim that it is "the 
correct simulation by H", you are just admitting that you have been a 
LIAR for this for the past decades.

> 
> There is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior
> of D(D). If there was such a mapping then the detailed steps
> of D correctly simulated by H where D terminates normally
> could be provided.

Of course there is, that is what a UTM does.

But since HB isn't a UTM, your claim just show you to be a lying idiot.

Can you show a reference that the transformation needs to be something 
done by a particular decider?

Failure to provide that also prove you to be just a idiotic pathological 
liar.


> 
> Thus I have proven H(D,D) is not allowed to report on the
> behavior of the directly executed D(D) because H is required
> to report on the mapping form its input and there is no mapping
> that reaches the behavior of D(D).
>

Nope, you have shown that you think "unsubstantiated claim" make up a proof.

Thus showing you are totally UNqualified to be discussing logic.


> _D()
> [00000cfc](01) 55          push ebp
> [00000cfd](02) 8bec        mov ebp,esp
> [00000cff](03) 8b4508      mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00000d02](01) 50          push eax       ; push D
> [00000d03](03) 8b4d08      mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00000d06](01) 51          push ecx       ; push D
> [00000d07](05) e800feffff  call 00000b0c  ; call H
> [00000d0c](03) 83c408      add esp,+08
> [00000d0f](02) 85c0        test eax,eax
> [00000d11](02) 7404        jz 00000d17
> [00000d13](02) 33c0        xor eax,eax
> [00000d15](02) eb05        jmp 00000d1c
> [00000d17](05) b801000000  mov eax,00000001
> [00000d1c](01) 5d          pop ebp
> [00000d1d](01) c3          ret
> Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d]
> 
>